Sunday, May 20, 2012

Lou Dobbs mystified by Obama-birth 'taboo'

'I don't know where the national media was in 2008 – or now'

Fox Business anchor Lou Dobbs says he’s mystified by an apparent “taboo” Republicans and the national media have as they continue to bury any question or news story probing the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president of the United States.

On Friday night’s edition of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on the Fox Business Network, the veteran broadcaster was having a political discussion with National Research founder Adam Geller.

“Let me ask you a question,” Dobbs said to Geller. “Why aren’t the Republicans talking about what was all over Drudge which is from 1991 to 2007, a publisher’s document talking about him being born in Kenya? I mean, there’s like there’s a taboo about it. How did this wall come up around that?”

Image from Breitbart.com

“The straightforward answer is,” Geller said, “by the time this is all said and done, there will be some entity that probably talks about that. But the reality is, the independents, the people in the middle, they care about one thing and one thing only: fix this economy. And as a corollary to that, let’s create some real private-sector jobs.”

“I buy all of that except for one thing,” Dobbs responded. “I don’t know where the national media was in 2008. I don’t know where it is now.”

A video clip of the exchange has been posted at Media Matters.
This is not the first time Dobbs has touched on the subject of Obama’s eligibility.

In fact, as WND previously reported, his refusal to drop “birther” stories about challenges to Obama’s constitutional eligibility was reportedly a major source of contention with CNN management, leading the unconventional anchor to walk away from the network and lucrative paycheck.

The New York Post, citing anonymous sources, said the beginning of the end of a long-simmering dispute came in July 2009, when CNN President Jonathan Klein told Dobbs’ staff in a memo to stop reporting on lawsuits that demand Obama produce evidence he’s a natural-born American citizen, as required by the Constitution.

“It seems this story is dead because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef,” Klein’s memo said.

A source told the Post Klein’s move incensed Dobbs.

“They have been talking pretty regularly since then,” the source said. “And it’s been pretty bad.”

Why The Long Wars?

Yesterday was Armed Forces Day. A celebration of our military and those who have served in all branches.

As I was watching cable news covering this day, something struck me as odd. Why have the last three wars (Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all been ten year wars? On December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, heavily damaged our Pacific Fleet and ran through the Central Pacific basically unchecked for the next year. Despite that, America was able, in the short span of less than four years, to take back North Africa, The Mediterranean, Western Europe, and then take the war right to Japan, itself. In August of 1945 Japan, the last belligerent of World War 2 unconditionally surrendered. We had used EVERY weapon at our disposal to end that terrible conflict ASAP. The difference between then and now? FDR let the military professionals run the war after he explained the ultimate goal.

Viet Nam was a fiasco because Lyndon Johnson wanted to be a warrior president and meddled in what should have been a short war. He did have the military mindset nor the understanding of either strategic or tactical goals. He ran the war like some kind of a game with too many restrictions, ” rules of war” that proved to be ridiculous, and relied on a corrupt government to supposedly, “watch our back”. We finally did break the back of the Viet Cong but after it was much too late and the public was turned firmly against the war. The weapons that we had at our disposal should have made quick work of North Viet Nam had we only been allowed to use them . Johnson never understood that war is not a game nor a political pawn therefore he left office disgraced.

Iraq was a joke from day one. There never was a use of the full force of the United States military, nor a concrete idea of what we realistically were going to do there. Again, political meddling set up rules for our military that were ridiculous. Maybe if we had tagged all the Iraqis with “good guy” “bad guys” it would have been easier for our soldiers to figure out who was who? We let Iran supply the insurgents with weapons to kill our guys and yet never touched them.

Afghanistan is the third decade old conflict that shouldn’t have been. Again, if the country we target is a legitimate enemy then let’s turn the full force and fury of our military heroes loose to get the job done as quickly and with as little lose to our people as possible. We don’t need to win “hearts and minds” as we are there to kill those trying to kill us. How do you realistically separate the “civilians” from the insurgents when they all look and dress alike? Iran should be turned into a giant sandbox. No “democracy, no rebuilding, no quarter given. Oh yeah I have forgotten how well they have treated Americans. Daniel Pearl and the other innocents who were beheaded for the morons entertainment. We have already this year 21 incidents of Afghans dressed as soldiers turning their guns on our guys without warning. Some allies huh. We support a mentally challenged ,corrupt ,unappreciative little man who isn’t even liked by his own people! When are we going to learn?

This is my point, if the United States is going to punish a country for screwing with us then turn on the military faucet and destroy the enemy totally and quickly. If you think that is too harsh, so is burying one of our heroes that politicians to play war. We are the most technically advanced military on the planet. Our military is the most well trained and best equipped force in the world, so why are we bogged down in these stupid, no win, no end game conflicts?

I am a hawk when it comes to military action, but I am also an advocate of using overwhelming force. War is NOT a game. The only rules that exist in war are kill or be killed and win. If the President simply wants to play warrior then let him get a board game like Battleship. If we are going to justifiably defend our national security, our territory, or to defend an ally, then let’s unleash the hounds of hell and break the enemy quickly. If we are going to send our ground forces into a country where the existing government is weak kneed you can’t tell the difference between the population and the bad guys then let’s keep our guys out and turn the battle over to our special forces and the drones. No more needless casualties for people and countries that disdain or disrespect us. Our blood and treasure is worth far more than most of these “troubled” countries are worth so let’s start using what we have to the utmost and make our intervention very short and very harsh.

Hawaii Won’t Send Official Confirmation Of Obama’s Birth To Arizona

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett is saying he is “stunned” that after eight weeks election officials in Hawaii still have not provided him with even so much as an Email confirming they have proper documentation on record regarding Barack Obama’s official birth certificate.

Because of their lack of official reply, Bennett is considering keeping Obama off of the Democrat ballot in Arizona! “For some reason they haven’t been willing to say yes,” the Bennett told radio talk show host Mike Broomhead. Bennett said he’s received over 1,200 Emails from his state’s citizens asking him to require Barack Obama to produce an original birth certificate. “This is impossible to get,” because states only provide certified copies of the original document. But the State of Hawaii apparently won’t even do that or even Email confirmation according to their new rule changes. “Hawaii can’t or won’t answer. . .do you have a birth certificate for this guy?” Bennett said.

In reply to Broomhead’s question: “Will you exclude the President from the ballot?”, the AZ official said that is a possibility, or he may ask all candidates to submit valid birth certificates. When CIR called both Bennett and his communications director, they both were either not at their desks or not in the office.

A commenter on this story said, “Why can’t this guy produce the real documents, college records, etc. Is he afraid to show he received financial aid as a foreign student?”

Florida‘s eligibility challenge is still alive with Attorney Larry E. Klayman representing Citizen Mike Voeltz in a case that already has gone through 19 preliminary motions, hearings, and filings, since being put on the docket of Judge Terry Lewis on 2-15-2012. Case No. 37 2012 CA 000467 has eight different attorneys representing the original defendant Florida SoS Ken Detzner , the Florida Election Canvassing Commission and Barack Obama whose attorney is Stephen F. Rosenthal. The latest entry came on May 14 in the crucial battleground state most pundits agree Obama must have to be reelected in November.

“If Obama loses Florida, he WILL lose the Presidency,” Plaintiff’s Attorney Klayman told the Naples, Fl first ever Eligibility Conference held on April 21.

The plaintiffs are said to need at least $9,000 in fees and court costs just to keep this action alive! You can view the entire conference on youtube.

Another conference participant is using his knowledge of Florida election laws to approach the case from a new angle. By failure to prove eligibility Obama and the Democrat Party are collecting money and fund raising fraudulently or rather by means of false premises. In other words if lies have been or are being told concerning the President’s nativity then fraud is the operative legal vehicle for action.

According to the dictionary, marriage is the social
institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as
husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

According to Barack Hussein Obama marriage is now a free for
all where anyone can marry anyone of either sex because he’s made it politically correct
to do so, and because it will get him some much needed votes come November...or so
he thinks.

Add to that the fact that the NAACP (The National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People) recently jumped on Obama’s
pro-gay marriage bandwagon also. They
recently passed a resolution supporting gay marriage saying to do otherwise
would ‘seek to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the
constitutional rights of LGBT citizens.’

“The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted
in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and equal protection of
all people,” said Benjamin Todd, CEO of the NAACP.

Last time I checked, marriage of any kind was NOT mentioned in
the Constitution at all.

The 14th Amendment under the Equal Protection
Clause (of which Mr. Todd was referring) requires that each state provide equal
protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction..."full and
equal benefit of all laws"...but he and others forget that the institution
of marriage is not a law, it’s a choice freely made, and besides the word marriage
nor its definition appears nowhere in this Amendment or in any others.

Though I wholeheartedly understand why committed gay couples
want to ‘marry’ so to speak, as they want basically what we want...stability in
family life, survivor's rights, joint medical benefits, etc., and while I truly
believe that committed couples should be entitled to all those things, I do NOT
believe the term ‘marriage’ is necessary for those couples to attain those
rights.

Gay partnerships, which would include all the rights
afforded to heterosexual couples, can be called Civil Unions, Domestic
Partnerships, Spousal Affirmation, whatever...it just should NOT be called ‘marriage’
as the definition of marriage has never changed or wavered since the days of the Bible and remember, nowhere in our Constitution is the word ‘marriage
defined or even used.

To change our Constitution to placate a minority, any
minority, just for votes is wrong and this is what Barack Hussein Obama proposes
to do. While we have rightly amended the
Constitution on important matters concerning critical civil rights issues and
such, amending the Constitution to appease the country’s gay minority, who can
attain the very rights they desperately want through other avenues and channels
besides using such a polarizing word as ‘marriage,’ is just plain wrong and unnecessary.

I’m also surprised that the gay community hasn’t recognized that
they are being used, and that once their usefulness is over that they will be thrown
under the bus just like Obama does to everyone else.

The role of good government is to protect and serve its
citizenry NOT to get involved in personal matters. The issue of gay marriage is indeed personal,
and as such should not be put on public display by this man, for the price that
will be paid in more heated condemnation of the gay lifestyle will not be worth
what Barack Hussein Obama will have put them through just so he can get their
votes.

EMAIL FOLLOWERS

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on RSP Radio at: https://streamingv2.shoutcast.com/right-side-patriots